I fail to see how America can be dragged into this apart from France had designs on America for itself but ended up with nothing!

This has been ongoing since at least 1066 when The Normans usurped the English throne.
As a result of this the ruling English monarch inherited some French lands.
And therein lies the roots of the age long enmity between the two nations.

Both nations have consistently attempted to scupper each other's interests thus advancing their own.

I could list numerous examples of how Britains have contributed and advanced so many fields within arts and culture in comparison to France but I
think that should be for another thread.

De Gaulle consistently vetoed British entry into the EEC as he saw the UK a threat to the Franco-Gremanic controlled behemoth it continues to be
today.
De Gaulle disliked British society and culture which he considered course and uncouth.
He resented the roles Churchill and Roosevelt played in the war.
He refused to allow French soldiers to take part in the D-Day landings only allowing them on shore after the beach heads had been secured.
Ironically The Free French Forces were predominantly made up of troops from France's colonies.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
Since when has the US protected anyone.

If a massive oil field were to be discovered beneath Wolverhampton, the US is likely to declare England a terrorist nation and invade the place.

Well they actually service and hold all the parts for our Trident missiles, so if we are ever to used those we will need to get them off America
first

Britain is technically so dependent on the US that in effect Trident is not an independent system. For example, the British Trident missiles are
serviced at a port in the state of Georgia and warhead components are also made in the US.

Surely we are due another war with France at any moment now, this is the longest time England and France have ever been in peace, it's only natural
that one of us is going to try and invade the other soon. How the hell are we going to go about that when we are sharing war ships?!

That may be so, but the fact remains we're not going to be sharing ANY ships with the French. We just talking about sharing operational duty with
them, ie have 1 carrier at sea and the other two in port, which is cheaper. The UK gets it's two and France builds the one they have said they
want.

The real money saver coming down the line with regards to the carriers (they've already been paid for) is the planes that go on them. It is highly
likely there will be no ski jump on them and instead an EM catapult installed for either the F-35C which up to now has been only planned for the USN,
or (god forbid) we stock them full of F-18's..

Surely we are due another war with France at any moment now, this is the longest time England and France have ever been in peace, it's only natural
that one of us is going to try and invade the other soon. How the hell are we going to go about that when we are sharing war ships?!

Good question

I guess politicians will have to use the old trick: waving their fist of fury with the right hand without knowing what the left hand do.

Didn't they propose, a few years ago, that a similar arrangement might be put into place with British & French ballistic missile submarines and their
targeting ?

Didn't hear an awful lot more back about that one. Wouldn't surprise me if they've got a secret deal on the go which effectively doubles the number
of targets that British & French submarines can take out ... and that our "adversaries" have been made aware of that fact.

Just a guess, right enough.

As to this carrier deal, I'm a bit concerned. Although the Russians aren't going to be sailing up the Thames (or the Seine) anytime soon, it's a
bit like the 1981 Defence Review & proposed Navy cuts, it might send the wrong signal to potential aggressors.

Seriously guys, it takes you all 4 pages of arguing and you dont see whats obvious here?

Alot of you folks are brits, and for those of you that arent....have ya ever tasted brittish food? Crikey! thats some bland slop to put it mildly, Im
fairly certain the bright brittish naval officers eyeing a potential year at sea due to any number of possible wars....figured hey why dont we get the
frenchies to come along, at least then we will get some good grub

The US and the UK are in the same cultural sphere sharing specific traits, trends, ideas, concepts and interpretation of history. It's a different
cultural sphere from, say, Hispanicity or the Arab world.
I'll use anglosphere if you are unhappy with anglo-american.

As an exemple, you won't find the stereotype that French are cowards in Hispanicity or any other cultural sphere. It's specific to the anglosphere,
it appeared after WWII and the will of non-dependance to the US by de Gaulle. It's pejorative but first of all politically driven.

You are referring to past events like it's a personal matter and as if they'd explained nowadays stereotypes. They are not. France or England had
everyone as an enemy at one point of their long history. They fought each other on numerous fields not only by military means and they fought other
powers too.
AFAIK relations have evolved since then between the two. It doesn't explain this outrage I read on the thread. This outrage is not based on past
history but on insidious depictions spred in your cultural sphere during our modern days.

Britain has contributed a lot to our world in so many fields as you said. If you felt you had to add this because you think I dislike Britons, you are
very wrong. I have no dislike for Americans either or why would I hang around here ?
If you want to prove some kind of superiority from the UK, go make a thread but what's your motive ?

De Gaulle vetoed UK and explained why many times. He thought there was no political will in UK to participate in the construction of a new Europe and
that the UK were closer to the US than to the rest of Europe, that the UK would obstruct the development of european cooperation for fear of its
influence if it was successful.

Sorry for the long quote, the site doesn't provide a direct link.
Taken from here : www.ena.lu...

General de Gaulle's first veto

On 14 January 1963, General de Gaulle held a press conference at which he declared his opposition to the United Kingdom’s application for
membership. He referred to incompatibilities between continental European and British economic interests. In addition, he demanded that the United
Kingdom accept all the conditions laid down by the Six and revoke its commitments to countries within its own free trade area. On 28 January, the
French Government forced its five European partners, who were already shocked by the unilateral veto, to adjourn the membership negotiations.

General De Gaulle was afraid that the new member might threaten the common agricultural policy (CAP) and transform the European Economic Community
(EEC) into a huge free trade area. Above all, he regarded the United Kingdom as a Trojan horse concealing US interests: he believed that British
membership would lead to the Americanisation of Europe. He declared his support for a deepening and an acceleration of common market integration
rather than expansion, and shed doubts on the UK’s commitment to Europe.

De Gaulle's attitude also stemmed from reasons not connected solely with EEC interests. In addition to the anti-British resentment that he had
continued to harbour ever since he was exiled to London during the war, he was afraid of British-American nuclear cooperation. When, in October 1962,
American Polaris rockets were supplied to the British, this was a grave blow to Franco-British relations, while de Gaulle continued to develop close
relations with Germany.

It's an articulate geostrategic vision. Because it's not very favorable to british and american interests, he must be taken down and discredited in
your general culture, on irrationals like "he hates...".
Now, looking back, do you think he was wrong ? Who is generally considered UK's most important ally ? Europe ? Are the UK committed to Europe ?

I am only guessing but I think you are not pro-EU and you use De Gaulle's veto as a point to this discussion. Odd.

There was no Franco-German behemoth at the time so nothing to threat. France-German cooperation really started with Kohl and Mitterrand. The threat
was that if UK joined, UK would obstruct further cooperation and denature the development of a new Europe. It's my opinion and I think it's a spread
opinion it's exactly what the British government did.

De Gaulle disliked British society and culture which he considered course and uncouth.

Is it hearsay ? Did you read it in his "Memoires" ? Or is it a projection of your collective memory ?

He resented the roles Churchill and Roosevelt played in the war.

What do you mean he resented their roles ? He had his own role and they were disagreements, especially with Roosevelt. Actually, Churchill was close
to de Gaulle, there would be no de Gaulle without Churchill then he felt under Roosevelt's influence. De Gaulle didn't want foreign interests to
take advantage of France situation. He tought the British had views on French colonies and the most important, he didn't want a foreign military
administration of France like it happened in Italy.
What would you expect from your political leaders in such a situation ? It's not like he declared himself or acted as an enemy of the UK.
At the time, he was popular in the UK just like Churchill was and still is very popular in France, all the discredit came afterwards. It's a
construction.

Originally posted by Freeborn
He refused to allow French soldiers to take part in the D-Day landings only allowing them on shore after the beach heads had been secured.

You didn't read that in a history book, did you ?
De Gaulle was informed about Overlord only early june. The French were set aside the Normandy landing, Roosevelt didn't want de Gaulle to gain
political credit and be able to impose a French administration, he wanted an American administration of France.
There were only 200 French soliders who participated in the landing in Ouistreham alongside Britsh troops. It's a shame you belittle their sacrifice
since you and me, we don't know what our lives would look like if it wasn't for their bravery and the bravery of all those soldiers regardless of
their nationalty. A dozen reached Paris, the rest died in combat.
On a side note, French are generally very sensitive when disrespect is shown to Americans, Brits or Canadians fallen on D-day and the days after
despite what is constantly implied in some cultural spheres. Of course, sadly, the youth is like everywhere else, they are not really
interested in times that predates the Flood to them.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Ironically The Free French Forces were predominantly made up of troops from France's colonies.

The Free French Forces landed in Normandy two months after D-day. I point it because I presume you don't know. They were indeed largely made up of
troops from French colonies. I am sure if you think about it again, you'll find it makes sense. It's ironic only because it fits your carefully
crafted opinions.

Thank you OTTOKARMA but I am not smart and I am not particularly well educated. My posts are only mostly the perceptions of my own cultural sphere. I
am guilty of falling into them many times too.

My point is we are brainwashed with stuff that is 99% ignorance. We all think we think by ourselves and are strongly opiniated whereas we are on
tracks, thinking exactly as we are programmed to. Very few of us can really think outside the box, our cultural box. We are full of facts we know
about and we are certain of when truly we are only repeating them like parrots and have never questioned them.
We need to communicate between spheres and share our perceptions, maybe that way we can better understand the world we are living in and go past the
illusions.

First of all I would like to commend you on an extremely well written response.

Secondly I would like to point out that a lot of my post was meant 'tongue in cheek' and had intended humorous overtones as the idea that the UK and
France would even consider sharing aircraft carriers is ridiculous from both nations point of view.
Sharing duties and responsbility maybe, actual craft no.

De Gaulle, like Napoleon before him, has been demonised to represent everything that we British, English especially, dislike about The French.
That there isn't a certain amount of propoganda and spin involved is without doubt.
But speak to the ordinary 'man in the street' and he will express a general dislike and mistrust of all things French.
It is impossible to forget a thousand years of warfare in a generation.
We are an island people and have an island mentality, it's what drove us for centuries.
We have a distinctly different nature and approach to continental Europeans.

So in that maybe De Gaulle was right.
However, even in the quote you supplied it states this:
"De Gaulle's attitude also stemmed from reasons not connected solely with EEC interests. In addition to the anti-British resentment that he had
continued to harbour ever since he was exiled to London during the war, he was afraid of British-American nuclear cooperation. When, in October 1962,
American Polaris rockets were supplied to the British, this was a grave blow to Franco-British relations, while de Gaulle continued to develop close
relations with Germany."

Quite clearly De Gaulle had a cetain amount of resentment towards the UK from the years spent here during the war.
Why one has to ask oneself?

And why was he suspcious of Anglo-American nuclear co-operation?
We were both allegedly his allies, had helped liberate France and were both in NATO in addition to being permanent members of the UN Security
Council.
Why didn't he want the UK to have independant nuclear weapon capability?
Not his sense of French superiority rearing it's ugly head was it?

And it's obvious he's forging closer links to Germany well before the Mitterand - Kohl era.

At present the UK resents being reliant on the US and refuses to become subserviant to the EU.
The UK has some difficult and important decisions to make.
We each have our opinions on that and I suspect that this isn't the thread to voice them.

During The Normandy D-Day landings 530 Free French parachuted behind German lines in Brittany.
They were the only Free French to see active service.
Opinions differ as to why.
Some believe it was at De Gaulle's insistence as he wanted them held back for his entrance and parade through Paris.
Roosevelt was never going to get an American administration in France.

I have nothing but respect for all those who fought anywhere in WWII, regardless of nationality.

My point is that the French themselves could, and should, have done far more themselves to help gain the liberation of their country.
The extent, nature and number of French collaborators far exceeded those involved in Resistance activities and is still a source of national shame to
the French today who generally refuse to discuss and even acknowledge it.

Yes, French people near the landing areas are most appreciative and respectful to Allied vets.
The attitude changes as you get further inland and in some former Vichy controlled areas and other areas can be downright hostile.
But this doesn't fit into the accepted viewpoint of things and rarely get's reported.

De Gaulle distrusted British intentions and suspected they were after France's colonial territories.
De Gaulle famously and fervently believed that 'France had no friends, only interests'.

Churchill regarded relations with De Gaulle a constant battle and considered it one of his hardest challenges of the war.

Interesting, especialy since British food is world renowned for its wholesomness when compared with say the calorific obscenity of American food, the
over complicated and light weight of French cuisine, and the outright insanity of German food which boils down to eighty different kinds of sausage,
and various vegetables mixed with mayonaise like sauces.
International chefs prefer british asparagus, and many swear by Aberdeen Angus beef, welsh lamb ... I could go on.
Suffice to say we have some of the best raw materials in the world, and even the poshest and most patriotic of foriegn chefs would be hard pressed to
say otherwise.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.